Is this fansite for the Mega Man series reliable? Normally, the answer would be no, but this website has been referred to by other reliable sources for an unusual number of times:

• Destructoid: [1] [2] [3] [4]
• Eurogamer: [5]
• Time Extension: [6]
• VentureBeat: [7]
• Video Games Chronicle: [8]
• Polygon: [9], [10]
• IGN: [11]

The website has made several exclusive reports that were also cited by other sources, such as an interview with Mega Man 11 Kazuhiro Tsuchiya (Destructoid) and the leak of the cancelled Mega Man Star Force 4 (Siliconera, Destructoid).

Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, this source would be reliable enough to be put on the reliable source list. And the editorial policy, it's really just the founder himself, Brian "Protodude" Austrin, who is an established figure as seen above and does the fact-checking generally professionally. I see no problem in directly citing this for Mega Man topics, although early articles (pre-2010) are not high quality and should be avoided. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't think of a single franchise fansite like this that meets our criteria. For example, there's some seriously impressive Sonic or Mario ones...but they still are amateur enthusiast bloggers self-publishing onto the internet. I can't imagine this is different. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the information on this site that is not already applied or unattainable from the sites you mentioned? Not saying this can't be used or not, but is it essential if other content already covers the material? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This. When an unreliable source is carried by other reliable sources, which we trust to apply fact checking and editorial control over, we just use them instead. We're using them to vet the information from a source we'd otherwise not consider reliable. The site is still a self-published fan blog. -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There are Japan-exclusive official Mega Man media that rarely gets covered in English, which makes Rockman Corner necessary. Mobile i-mode games on List of Mega Man video games (and other similar pages) are almost completely unsourced and is unlikely to get sourced from major English media because they usually only cover things that get international release. For one example, Mega Man X (video game) article mentions an old mobile port, which currently only cites Japanese website that exists in archive. Using this Rockman Corner feature would makes it easier to describe what this port is.

This website would be placed under lower priority than the other reliable sources, but it sometimes covers what other sources do not, with generally reliable quality, and citing it under limited condition seems like a net positive overall. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but there are Japanese reliable sources that can be used instead. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This. We don't have to use English sources, we can use reliable Japanese sources. Desire for an English source of that information does not add urgency for us to declare an unreliable SPS as reliable just to fill the hole. -- ferret (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Basically what was said above. This site might be great for finding the material you are looking for, but if its pointing in the direction of where to find it, then by all means, lets take it from the source in question. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Japanese sources on the information are generally few and scarce, and frankly less reliable, mostly web portals with anonymous writers. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Emiya Mulzomdao That still doesn't add urgency to declare a self-published blog as reliable just to fill the hole. The actual answer is, if no reliable sources, English or Japanese, are covering a topic, then there is little due weight to include that information. -- ferret (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

DashFight mostly contains coverage about fighting games in general. Here's their additional information on Muck Rack. Kazama16 (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any information for the writers except being fighting game fans, and About Us is not helping. Its chief-in-editor is Elizbar Ramazashvili, and I couldn't find anything about him before DashFight. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable. No editorial policy, site is primarily a commercial endeavor around fighting game events and tournaments, not journalism. The "Our Services" page doesn't once mention journalism and is about marketing and consulting for esports industry. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

https://goombastomp.com/

I dont see how it meets our standards for being a reliable source. Their About Us page says almost nothing about editorial policy, procedure, credentialed writers, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur. I've seen them show up several times in my searches for things, but no indication that they're actually up to snuff as a reliable source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I imagine it'd be difficult to research individual writers credentials either, given their set up. For example, this writer's page doesn't say anything besides a first name of "David" (and the link itself puzzlingly enough says "Eugene" too now that I look at it - https://goombastomp.com/author/eugene/) Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable; it has the same issues as all the other Nintendo news sites mostly written by fans/amateurs. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable. Surprised this wasn't listed there already. Nothing about them indicates reliability by any means. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "MSN Gaming Zone" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

MSN Games is a casual gaming website. Before that, way before that, back in the halcyon days of the Internet, it was founded in 1996 and soon came to be known as MSN Gaming Zone, which was much like Microsoft's own version of GameSpy of the day. There is unfortunately not much to find in its list of games that would be useful for Wikipedia, and attempting to search the homepage and the index beyond 2001 on the Internet Archive returns an error page, typically a "Browser Not Supported" message. However, I have found old news articles, especially for Microsoft titles, in places such as here and interviews and behind-the-scenes in (confusingly) the Tips & Strategies sections of a few entries, both of which I could not find anywhere else on the Web. It seems those articles are original content by Microsoft. Note that there was also a website called MSN Game News, also run by Microsoft, but virtually none of the article content is by Microsoft itself; the overwhelming majority comes from GameSpot and can still be read there. Anyway, the latest article I could find on MSN Gaming Zone is one dated September 23, 2002. Hence, I have marked the year 2002 as the cutoff date for this source. FreeMediaKid$ 09:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Sirus Gaming" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This one is pretty niche but it might be salvagable. They do have an editor in chief, and a means for reporting issues or corrections.[12] I realize it's nowhere near the same level as IGN. But with those big outlets moving more to user generated content and AI, with fewer actual journalists, I feel like we ought to hang onto what few journalists we can still find. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Not too sure about this one. It doesn't look bad, per se, but there's no public editorial policy, and I had to search elsewhere to find the list of writers (which appears to be auto-generated by the CMS anyway, sorted by number of articles written). Having an editor-in-chief and public email address is good but ultimately has little impact on reliability. A single article published over the last fortnight doesn't give much faith either, holiday period or not. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel reasonably confident that's just the holidays. I agree that we'd want to see the editor-in-chief enforce some type of editorial policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Bejeweled (video game) is currently undergoing a FAC per my nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus has conducted a source review and is questioning whether some of the references have been "subject to some kind of editorial review". These sources are considered reliable per this page, but Jo-Jo says he is "trying to be a bit more rigorous with videogame sources" than usual because he's unsure if WP:VG/S is "up-to-date" and he doesn't "have the expertise to judge VG sources otherwise". As such, I would like thoughts on the following links:

• https://kotaku.com/from-bejeweled-to-plants-vs-zombies-how-popcap-got-jus-1844338169
• https://kotaku.com/15-years-later-november-2004-might-still-be-one-of-the-1839905549
• https://www.gamespot.com/articles/polishing-bejeweled/1100-6301815/
• https://www.pcgamer.com/popcap-week-john-vechey-on-founding-popcap-making-bejeweled/
• https://www.gamesradar.com/the-legacy-of-match-three-games-from-bejeweled-to-candy-crush/

Lazman321 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Kotaku has been debated several times recently. The other three are fine with no debates or questions to my knowledge. -- ferret (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconded, though I think Kotaku was deemed usable in that timeframe. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no problem. All of these sources are reliable. At worst, some may be situational, but these all appear to be proper fact-based articles with something substantial to say.

Are there any facts that are in dispute? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No specific facts were in dispute. Jo-Jo just listed a series of URLs used in the article and asked if they underwent editorial review. Lazman321 (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "onechilledgamer.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · URL... LinkTo

New to Wikipedia, have no idea if this website is legitimate. They seem to have pretty good editorial standards (no broken English or obviously AI-generated content).

Their about page seems legit.. MrFattie (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

No staff page or credentials, mostly guides, no editorial policy, 80-90% of the content is the site owner. Essentially a group blog, almost an individual blog. Unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable as per ferret's reasoning. In addition, I cannot see any reliable sites linking to it, or even any sites that don't look like they're incredibly dodgy and/or they're listed with domains/subdomains like websitescrawl or keywordranking.

As you're new to Wikipedia, it's worth a mention that for all we know this may be a great site and have an incredibly meticulous owner who ensures everything is perfect. But actual reliability and Wikipedia reliability are different things. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I know this is a good-faith question, and its good that you ask these sorts of questions, but unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of sourcing we try to avoid on Wikipedia. It appears to be nothing more than a self-described "fan" self-publishing their unregulated thoughts onto the internet. It doesn't have any of the aspects of a professional publication that we look for in reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

fair enough. MrFattie (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Video Game History Foundation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

In light of VGHF's new library going live today, it made me realize that we don't currently have them listed anywhere on the page, so I'd like to get our stance down in writing, specifically in regard to the original content they provide like blogs and podcasts. Personally, I'm leaning reliable, between their collation of other reliable sources, the substantial research they provide on covered topics, and founder Frank Cifaldi's prior history writing for sites we've deemed reliable like Gamasutra. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I would say reliable considering the caliber of people involved. Worst case scenario, it'll help us access these old print magazines, and we can cite them separately. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally reliable: Most of the blog posts are written by Frank Cifaldi, who as you've said is a reliable author. According to this page, the posts that aren't written by Cifaldi do have to be vetted by him, making them probably reliable as well. As for the podcasts, it would probably be on a case-by-case basis, though most of the people being interviewed do appear to have good credentials or were involved in the subject in some way. The only potential concern I have is regarding WP:BLPSPS, as while the writers such as Cifaldi most certainly have credentials, I'm not sure if the editorial control is enough for this website to be used for BLP claims. In that sense, it's similar to People Make Games. Lazman321 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Loot Level Chill" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I presume that Loot Level Chill is unreliable, but I thought I'd log some information here as it may seem like it came out of nowhere to some, despite now being on MetaCritic and OpenCritic.

It's the new site by the editorial team from God Is A Geek (already marked as unreliable) who all quit after an well-publicized incident. The owner Calvin Robinson was already well-known to be on the far-right, but he did a Nazi salute and the news that he was associated with the site was mentioned by some high profile sources, which I'm guessing is why they quit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkeruTomoe (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, if we didn't support the use of GIAG, then I don't know what the argument for reliability for a group of them spinning out a new project at LLC... Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Touch Tap Play..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Part of GAMURS Group, which also owns Dot Esports (reliable per WP:VG/S), but also Destructoid (unreliable).

About Us page: https://www.touchtapplay.com/about-us/

Leaning towards unreliable. Fine for reception sections, but not for sourcing biographical, historical or controversial information.

• No editorial policy that I can find.
• Reviews do not state how games are acquired (e.g., bought versus code provided).
• None of the staff that I can see have wider publications. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Quick note: Destructoid is currently classified as situational currently. As far back as I can remember, its wavered between varying degrees of "reliable" and "situational" depending on where we split it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "pluggedin.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Review site run by Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian organization. I'm currently planning to rewrite the reception section for the Deltarune article and stumbled across their Chapter 1 & 2 review. I generally wouldn't mind using this source with attribution, but Focus has a reputation of misinterpreting information in favor of their viewpoint, and makes me concerned of its reliability. Maybe this source could be considered situational? I don't know. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 21:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable: If they can't be trusted for correct interpretations of fact, how can we trust them for their opinions, especially since they are an anti-LGBT organization discussing a game with LGBT themes. Lazman321 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable: We should not cite sources known for promoting extremist views, and Focus on the Family and any of their publications are some of them. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 00:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Situational - I am not excusing or endorsing any of their views, but we need to make sure we're reviewing sources based on Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, not because we agree or disagree with their views. There's arguments to be made about them being a professional publication. They've got an established staff, and their "FAQs" are essentially outlining a editorial policy of sorts. Their director has been an editor for religious publications, while their editor has experience writing for professional publications like The Washington Post, Christianity Today, and Time Magazine. I agree that I would consider them unreliable/not an authority on off-beat games like Delta Rune or Undertale, but I'd see them as an authority for things like "the Christian view point on Christian games" or have their two cents on controversies not-created by themselves. (I wouldn't include their commentary about why Link (character) is a godless heathen for killing animals in Breath of the Wild, but I could see them giving their two cents on an already established controversy, like the Hot Coffee mod.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "creativebloq" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Owned by Future plc. Seen it a few times while searching game engine articles. My assumption is that it is good. Surprisingly it doesn't seem to be listed anywhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk • contribs)

• Reliable - Their About Us section shows an established and generally credentialed staff. They've been around for over a decade, so I'm also surprised they haven't come up before. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm seeking help from administrators or people well-versed in Wikipedia policy to help me settle something regarding the Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds page. MissUnderstandin00 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This has largely been resolved. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. MissUnderstandin00 (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Automaton Media" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Anyone have any thoughts on the reliability of Automaton? Someone suggested using this article on the Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds page, and after scrutinizing the website as a whole and seeing no problems, I went ahead and cited it.

According to the footer, the site is owned by Active Gaming Media, so it looks like it has some strong video game industry connections and can likely generally be trusted as far as video games are concerned. They have a Japanese side and an English side (and some articles translated from the former to the latter), which could be relevant here if the editing teams of those two sides are found to be of different degrees of reliability. I can't read the language well enough to comment on the Japanese articles, so I'll mostly be talking about the English side.

Besides that, as far as I can tell, the site seems to accurately represent its sources- I can't see anything wrong with articles like these ([13], [14], [15]), so they seem good as a secondary source of basic "[x individual/company] did or said a thing" statements. There's also some interviews ([16], [17], [18]) which seem reliable enough given their aforementioned industry connections, and no signs of churning random listicles or articles entirely based on some random someone tweeting that a thing would be cool.

The only apparent catch I can see is that, while they don't seem to make anything up, they do have a fair number of articles which look like textbook examples of WP:FART ([19], [20], [21]) so it might be fair to say that the site isn't a major contributor to notability, and is best to use to reasonably augment articles about topics that are already proven to be notable.

In short, I think my personal assessment is they're probably reliable enough, provided that we're discerning about their use and consider the relevance of any given article on a case-by-case basis. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment Apparently someone already raised the question of its reliability a few years ago, although it wasn't documented on the checklist afterwards. Going by the comments here, I'd imagine it's probably fair to say it should probably be listed as "Situational" or "Other". silviaASH (inquire within) 03:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that was an oversight, there really wasn't a discernible consensus at the last discussion. It's good we revisit it, I have seen it used some in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I've cited them for interviews or their own reactions to things, and I think under those guidelines it should be perfectly fine. I feel we're a bit too strict on the "FART" aspect given every source does that to some extent (looking at you, IGN and whatnot)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to limit the website's usability just because of WP:FART, we just use our best judgment and not use content that is WP:FART, which is something we have to be mindful on most websites. I'd !vote reliable unless it can be established that Automaton has FART issues that are worse than reliable sources we have listed here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It's probably not any worse than any other games journalism website, I guess. I've never really participated in or started one of these discussions before so I wasn't sure whether or not it would be a huge issue here, but I guess I've now learned that it isn't, so that's a good thing to be remembering for the future. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You're fine, it's good to bring these discussions up when you're unsure. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's Reliable. If it's a significant issue, I'd suggest adding some notice to be careful of FARTy articles, especially for things published shortly after an announcement, but its issues are comparable to other reliable sources like IGN, so I'm not too concerned it's worse than other sources. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Only did a few mins of searching here but I Oppose listing it. No listed editorial policy, no SME on staff, and a "novice" editor-in-chief (link). Probably fine for basic reception but I would not personally use it on an article. As a source reviewer, I would not be likely to permit it at FAC. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I thought it important to clarify, but the English side is for English translations, which Townsend is experienced in. Adding onto that, while the Japanese side does not have a staff listing (that I can see), this is not at all uncommon for Japanese game sites. Dengeki and Famitsu both lack such pages, and I think it'd be folly to DQ a source for something that applies to arguably the two biggest Japanese game sites. In lieu of this, I think we have to examine other things that indicate reliability, and I think Automaton Media clears that. It is cited by numerous reliable sources: Time Extension, GamesRadar+, Eurogamer, Game Developer, Push Square, Nintendo Life, PCGamer, PCGamesN, VentureBeat, NME, HobbyConsolas Digital Spy, and TechRadar, just to name a few. I even found Yoshinori Ono writing a blog pointing to an interview he did with the website. They also interview many other people from major game companies, including Capcom, Spike Chunsoft, Sega, Suda51, Bandai Namco, Square Enix, Arc System Works, World of Horror's dev (I mention only because they also interviewed Junji Ito), and more. If there was not such strong evidence to show how reliable other sources view them, and how connected they are to the games industry, I would agree that situational would be acceptable. However, I find both of these to be extremely strong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Are we sure that it's all English translations, and no English-original articles? There does seem to be at least one writer on the English site who writes their own articles rather than translating them from JP. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I misspoke there. There are some articles that the English site writes. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I made a point of emphasizing how commonly Automaton Media is cited: User:Cukie Gherkin/Automaton Referencing It should also be noted that the company that owns the website is itself a games publisher, so they're not some small or independent venture. I believe that Automaton Media, like Famitsu, despite neither having staff pages or editorial policies listed, are clearly reliable through WP:USEBYOTHERS. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable - I see them as comparable to our Siliconera/Gematsu/Nintendo Life type websites: probably not worth citing if we've got 50+ publications to chose from for your next Tears of the Kingdom] or GTA 6-level blockbuster, but a good source to use for smaller, Japanese-centric titles. Similar to those sites, they've got a pretty strong USEBYOTHERS argument. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: To put that in context, their reports and interviews for the indie hit The Exit 8 are among the earliest - faster than Famitsu and Dengeki. Their articles are really useful for insights into Japanese games and developers. MilkyDefer 07:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Reliable: I concur with Cukie and Serge on this. I have used them quite a bit in the past for both Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia purposes and have found them really reliable when it comes to more Japanese topics as well as interviews. I also agree from my time using Japanese websites, especially websites such as Famitsu, Dengeki and 4Gamer, they aren't very well known for listing their authors. Additionally, as mentioned above, they have been heavily referenced by a vareity of sources that we deem reliable, with the WP:USEBYOTHERS policy helping its case in reliability. CaptainGalaxy 02:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Reliable: They really do quality reporting, on par with 4Gamer.net and Denfaminicogamer. MilkyDefer 07:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "QooApp" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Is this website reliable? Its introduction claims it's a "media platform" and "game publisher", but there's seemingly no public information of editorial policy or its authors. Author's name is only credited to nicknames like "Mr. Qoo" and "Hiroto". I can't see how this is reliable, but other input would be welcome.--Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a Hong Kong game media listed as a reliable source in zh:PJ:VG/RS, with the following comment: "Please be careful not to quote the content of Note Square, which is user-generated content and does not meet the requirements of reliable source." SuperGrey (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there any justification for why they use the main part though? Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

From their last discussion several years ago, they seem to focus on checking whether the article quality and factuality satisfy the RS criteria. While I also can’t find the editorial policy of QooApp anywhere (at least not on their website), it’s common for commentators of Chinese-language game media to hide behind personas and not publicize any personal information — in a toxic environment (especially in China).

That said, it seems that their English website and English articles are a relatively new thing. They might need separate evaluation. SuperGrey (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@MilkyDefer: What do you think? SuperGrey (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Plz give me some time I am pretty busy recently. MilkyDefer 07:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Since we are at English Wikipedia, it makes sense to judge using the (stricter) standards at English Wikipedia. My biggest concern of this website is its low fame. This is evidenced by its minimal user engagement and referrals by other websites.

It is an extremely rare practice to provide a separate page for editorial policy in HK as well as in China, Taiwan even Japan so I don't think it is a big problem.

I guess it is rated reliable in Chinese Wikipedia because they have a dedicated website, have access to various interviews and write seemingly decent articles.

To put that in context, the media environment in China is extremely "liberate" just as envisioned and admired by Elon Musk. Nearly every news website operates like Forbes contributors (WP:FORBESCON) but worse,^{[note 1]} and the vast majority of gaming journalism only happens on those platforms. Gaming journalism is barely a thing in Hong Kong. Therefore, if a publisher has its dedicated website to publish articles, it is a symbol of its seriousness and to editors in Chinese Wikipedia, it is very likely reliable.

My suggestion is to close as inconclusive and wait for further developments for this website. MilkyDefer 06:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree. And I think the reason why this website is not famous at all, is because that they don't yet post their articles to the content farms like WeChat Public Accounts (for mainland Chinese audience) or Yahoo! News (for Taiwanese audience). SuperGrey (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Is this a reliable site? They claim to be mentioned by multiple high-profile sources and also have a pretty detailed editorial policy on its about page. [22] Kazama16 (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I've never liked this site, personally. I appreciate that they apparently run their own tests, so their benchmarks and performance analysis are original. But as far as I can tell, their product review articles are mostly rewritten manufacturer specs and their product announcement articles are mostly rewritten press releases. On top of that, there are prominent affiliate links all over the place. All they're doing is making it easy to compare manufacturer details and buy a product.

Unless I'm missing something? What would we use them for? Woodroar (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)